Following the bankroll for SF's Propositions B, C

Published 4:28 pm, Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Photo: Skidmore Owings And Merrill

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

The proposed 8 Washington project would have replaced a parking lot and health club with a 12-story condominium building, a rebuilt health club and a new privately maintained park along the Embarcadero.

The proposed 8 Washington project would have replaced a parking lot and health club with a 12-story condominium building, a rebuilt health club and a new privately maintained park along the Embarcadero.

Photo: Skidmore Owings And Merrill

Following the bankroll for SF's Propositions B, C

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

I've got no gripe about the Propositions B and C election results.

Like many others, including Mayor Ed Lee and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, I supported building the condo development 8 Washington, which failed at the polls Tuesday. But hey, that's democracy in action. You win some, you lose some, and sometimes you get clobbered by lopsided double-digit margins.

Supporters will have some laments - it was an off-year election, the moderates never mobilized, the "No Wall on the Waterfront" campaign may have been effective but it wasn't actually, well, true.

It doesn't change my life, or probably yours, whether or not those 100-plus condos are built near the Embarcadero - particularly when you can look at the skyline and see construction cranes popping up on every block. It seems most San Franciscans didn't care very much whether it was built or not. If they did, more than a quarter of the city's registered voters would have turned out.

However, I do have a couple of quibbles.

For starters, this was no whim. The developers came up with a concept - build condos and make money - and dutifully went through the arduous San Francisco approval process, which dragged on for more than seven years.

There were hours of hearings at the Planning Commission. There were tweaks and changes to the plan. After considerable review and rigorous debate, the commission gave its approval.

It was then taken up by the Port Commission, which voted in favor of it - unanimously.

Then it went to the Board of Supervisors for seven hours of hearings. It carried 8-3. After a series of machinations, it came back to the board for another vote and won again 8-3.

At the Board of Supervisors! This is the group that split, 6-5, on the issue of whether exhibitionists had the right to parade up and down the street naked.

It was, in other words, local government in action - elected officials, taking a thoughtful and careful look at a project and then making an informed decision.

To which opponents of the project said: Naw, we don't like that outcome. We're going to spend thousands of dollars to collect signatures to put this on the ballot and, for the first time in 20 years, try to overturn a Board of Supervisors decision.

Again, fine. That's your right as constitutionally empowered Americans. I'd just say that at some point if we're just going to disregard the city government process and vote on the location of every bus stop, somebody ought to give us a heads-up. Because we're wasting a lot of everybody's time and money.

Here's the second quibble: the narrative that a coalition of grassroots organizers got together, pooled their meager resources and set out to battle scary corporate interests.

Horsefeathers.

There was a small, committed band of organizers all right, but they were largely bankrolled by one couple, Richard and Barbara Stewart, who live in a nearby high-rise. Presumably the Stewarts didn't want their view blocked, although that's just a guess because they didn't make any public statements. (I left a message at a phone number listed for them, but there was no return call.)

What they did, however, was contribute over $400,000 to the "No" campaign. Boston Properties, which owns the nearby Embarcadero Center, chipped in another $150,000.

The developer of the project threw scads of money in too, that's true. More than the "No" folks had - over $1.8 million.

Fine. But at least the developer was up front about the motives - build condos and make money.

Despite attempts on both sides to make it sound as if this was an issue that galvanized everyone in San Francisco, let's not pretend it was a citywide uprising against growth and gentrification. This was a major developer who wanted to build condos fighting it out with a wealthy couple and the usual North Beach no-growthers.

It was certainly no secret. Telegraph Hill Dwellers President Jon Golinger was front and center at every press availability. Golinger is a nice guy. He returns phone calls, is always polite, and when he speaks you can hardly see Aaron Peskin's mouth moving. The outcome was a big win for the THD, showing that it is still relevant and effective.

All they need is someone to bankroll them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. As the Warriors arena comes up for a vote and waterfront NIMBYs tell us the city is adamantly opposed to any development, that is worth keeping in perspective.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.